CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 29 January 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 9785/21 Vladimir PANCHEVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 4 February 2021 communicated on 12 January 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is the former President of the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the Skopje Trial Court”). By a decision of 25 January 2019 the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”) dismissed the applicant for professional misconduct in relation to irregularities he was responsible for as President of the Skopje Trial Court in the distribution of cases among the judges of that court. Following an appeal, on 26 June 2020 the ad hoc Appeal Panel set up within the Supreme Court (“the Appeal Panel”) upheld that decision. The applicant was notified thereof on 25 July 2020. Following several unsuccessful attempts of summons of the applicant and his lawyers, on 10 July 2020 the investigating judge of the Veles First Instance Court ordered that the applicant be placed in detention on remand for thirty days in order to ensure his presence at the main hearing as he was to be tried under a summary procedure for abuse of office. According to the applicant, after he was informed from media outlets about the existence of an order for his detention on remand, on 15 July 2020 he turned himself in without being informed of the reasons for the detention order. According to the case-file, he was notified of the order in question and hence informed of the reasons for his detention during the main court hearing of 24   July 2020. On appeal of 25 July 2020 lodged by the applicant’s lawyer against the detention order, the decision was upheld by the Skopje Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), sitting in camera . In response to the allegations that the applicant’s judicial immunity had not been lifted before ordering his detention, the Court of Appeal found that he had no longer been a judge by virtue of the final decision of 26 June 2020 by the Appeal Panel which predated the impugned detention order. The applicant submitted before the Court a transcript from the State Employment Agency attesting to the fact that on 28 July 2020 he had been still holding the post of a judge at the Skopje Trial Court. On 4 August 2020 his detention on remand was discontinued as the Veles First Instance Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a three-year and six-month prison term. The applicant complains under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention that his detention had been ordered despite the fact that he enjoyed judicial immunity; that he was not informed of the reasons for his detention; and that he did not take part in the proceedings on his detention.           QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention of 10 July 2020 ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” since, at the time, he enjoyed judicial immunity (see Alparslan Altan v. Turkey , no. 12778/17, §§ 99-103, 16 April 2019)?   2.     Was the applicant informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest ordered on 10 July 2020 and of any charge against him, as required by Article   5 §   2 of the Convention (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no.   16483/12, §§ 115-16, 15 December 2016)?   3.     Was the applicant’s detention ordered in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in view, in particular, of the lack of an oral hearing before the domestic courts (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 161, 22 May 2012; and Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , nos. 46398/09 and 2 others, §§ 63 and 66, 24 April 2014)?